About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24 (225 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
544

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

California 4, Dpw 3, Derek Smith 2, Gary 1, Mr. Hwang 1, Charlie You 1, Karin Smith 1, Deborah Lane 1, Patricia Boyd 1, Lazarus 1, Hwang 1, Keith 1, Us 1, Honda 1, Mr. Smith 1, Hurtado 1, San Francisco 1, Fung 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    March 20, 2013
    5:30 - 6:00pm PDT  

5:30pm
and dpw all have different addresses. the dpw very own permit lists conflicting addresses both 84, second street and 49 feet northwest of the corner, 49 feet which is so confusing and we talked for a year is 92nd street that is on the dpw very own file that we just saw a half hour ago. this 90 second street makes bathroom further away no matter how you measure, the department of public health or works does not understand to tell us if they have approved it with sidewalk service or, interior. they have a statement that the sidewalk service is not allowed and it is highlighted in yellow. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for hearing our comments. can i just have it on the... please state your name.
5:31pm
>> charlie you. could i have it on the overhead the whole time. >> so my beef with dpw is that there is a 300 foot notice requirement and they have been using the mid point for the block to draw the radius, when they should be using the mid point of the block six. what occurs is that businesses that are 500 feet away from the food truck get noticed and businesses that are 100 feet away don't get noticed that makes no sense, the block face is defined through the code and even on the website tool it draws the radius the way that i want them to draw it but they choose to move it a block and a half up. and dpw's application of the laws is arbitrary and mr. hwang
5:32pm
said that it is 300 feet away and how could that be, they are doing something weird. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> hi, my name is keith, and i am not affiliated with any business in the neighborhood. impart of the neighborhood in the sense that i walk and drive those blocks frequently to get from the financial district to my facility. i know that you don't make policy decisions but this is public comment but i will note that the last thing that this block needs is another coffee per vaier particularly a truck that blocks the sidewalk, and it can con gest the traffic further. i am happy to know that there are things that you could deny this application and i hope that you do, you know, pay attention to what you are going to do and hopefully at the end of the day this application
5:33pm
will not be allowed to exist, thank you very much. >> next speaker please? >> hi, i'm gary, i'm the applicant. i have gotten no rest in 15 calls from the department of public health over the last week. >> and i have spoken to reyes at length about every single issue and we are in compliance with the department of public health and the department of public works. >> thank you. >> my name is deborah lane and i'm gary's wife and also an architect. i would say that measuring is not always perfect, different people get different measurements it all should be the same it is not an exact science. and the codes, specifically states that the zoning that dpw may consider, its not written as an edict and it is a big
5:34pm
difference, most zoning code is written as shall. this is written as may consider. but it is also, we have complied with the dpw's regulations as they are written. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> any other speakers? >> hello my name is karin smith and i manage the property in san francisco that houses four restaurants that wanted to put a food truck in front of my building and we successfully were able to appeal it and deny the permit. and this is exactly what is going on. this truck wants to be in front of an existing restaurant. the applicant said 84 second, but the dpw says 92, so we have a conflict of where this truck is actually going to be parked.
5:35pm
we found that the health department that it is says it includes prepackaged food instead of just coffee. so what is it? where is it? what is it doing? where is it going to go? no one knows. the ordinance was revised to establish food and underserved area, this is not an underserved area, thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, debbie, representing (inaudible) and i just wanted to go over a couple of things. first of all as it is noted that the health department has been called up several times and the measurements they are concerned that they have independently verified them and okay with the measurements. second of all we have gone through this a number of times but the code, my client has
5:36pm
tried his best to comply with all of the code requirements. he has done his best to do that. he is complying with the policy as it exists now. we understand that there may be changes in the future. he understand that this is the policy, and he went through an entire procedure for that. i understand that there there are notifications questions, as to notification, but that nobody has been affected by it because on the walking distance from the store, even if it were done wrong and we spoked to the media services after that and he said that he has done dozens of notifications exactly in that same manner, but the 300 foot walking from the truck is the same no matter what. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? >> patricia boyd and it is not on that subject. there are several things that are going to come in front of you in the near future, and one
5:37pm
of them is this changing to rental units into a house and the planning department has to have 65 percent of the second one in the basement. well the way that they are doing it is to eliminate the walkway from the backyards. so that there is no second means of egress coming on these buildings. and from the back, and this is something that is going to be coming up loud and clearly pretty soon. and another thing that is coming up is formula retail and there has been some new legislation here that will straighten some of it out. but what the formerly retail people are doing are hiding some of their businesses until after they get a certain number of permits. and there will be appeals on this. thank you.
5:38pm
>> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? >> good evening, commissioners, my name is (inaudible) and i just have one, if someone can clarify for me this. this schedule of the location says that it is the truck is going to be parked at 84 second street. and simultaneously there is a truck located 49 feet northwest of second street. this if you measure it, this actually builds up to be not 84 second street, this is 96nd street. so where exactly is the truck going to be parked is the question over here, it is very ambiguous. the process has not been completed properly. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? under item number one? >> okay, seeing none, we will move on to item number two,
5:39pm
which is commissioner comments and questions? commissioners? >> seeing none, we will move to item 3, which is the adoption of the minutes for the board's meeting of march 6, 2013. >> entertain a motion? >> so moved. >> if you could call the roll, please? >> we have a motion from vice president lazarus to adopt the march 6th minutes. on that motion, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> president hwang? >> aye. >> and commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 5-0, and the minutes are adopted. >> so we will take item number four which is a special item. commissioners, representatives from the department of public health tobacco free department contacted the board for an opportunity to make a short
5:40pm
presentation to you on the work that they do to dissuade owners to sell to miners. we have derek smith from the department of public health and given him ten minutes to address the board and of course he will be available to answer any questions that you might have. >> there you go. >> good evening, commissioners, derek smith, the department of public health, the tobacco free project and i hope to speak to you on a non-controversial issues the number of sales to tobacco to minors. i have given you some, as well as some that we offer from the department of health. there is a lot to be said and i will spare you that and let you read it. and just a base line to let you
5:41pm
know that tobacco is the number one cause of death on earth. since we are talking about the matter of sales of tobacco to mine minors, keeping down the impacts of alcohol use verses tobacco, it is the number one cause of every cancer in fact. additionally there is research that shows to proximity to tobacco is related to youth. and it shows that schools that are surrounded have students that smoke at a higher rate. >> additionally, the sales to minors has decreased, as they introduced a permit ordinance in 2003 and began to implement that through enforcement practices which i will talk about in 2004. so, as you see, this is just kind of an overview of graphic
5:42pm
of sales to minors in san francisco, as you see, 2003, 2004, there, is when the ordinance that makes every retailer apply for the city and the department of public health for the privilege and the opportunity. and when the enforcement began with the police department and you see there is a dip in sales to minors and we keep it around at 12.8 percent at the moment. the state has had a drop from 37, selling one out of three, more than one out of three to right now at the state level only 8.7 percent are illegally selling when there are inspections. the goal must be to reduce san
5:43pm
francisco to the average, that is when you include the entire state, and every community, at this point we are at 12.8 percent. and so an overview, and so just you know that you have a visual of tobacco outlets there are 1100 at most any given point, and this indicates that these blue dots indicate all of the retailers. just to give you a idea of where our kids are sold tobacco. >> here are the red cross and now those are places where we have documented in the last three years that the retailers sold to a minor and they sold to 15 or 16 years of age. all of these red dots that you see, these are instances in
5:44pm
which a retailer for various reasons but ended up selling to a minor in sort of put that sales profit before the health of our community. so, very briefly, an overview of why tobacco sales are a crime. this is in some ways may be sort of obvious, but the reason that there is a concern of sales to people under of 18 that is when the young people become addicted and become connected to tobacco. and as you see, i won't speak for the commissioners and i am not certain of your age but i am well over 26 years old and anyone who reaches the grand old age of 26 is tremendously unlikely to ever become a smoker. 96 percent of smokers start before the age of 26. and in fact, 64 percent of smokers start before the age of 18. as you can imagine this is a sweet spot for young people to access tobacco and begin utilizing it. one other kind of sad point in tobacco use is that young people often think that they are invisible and they can quit when they want and it is just a
5:45pm
cool thing that i am doing for the moment but in fact, three out of 14 age smokers continue to smoke into adulthood. so they think that they can shake t but it is at that period when they become addicted and end up becoming life-long users. and for these reasons and many more, in 2003, the san francisco board of supervisors passed an ordinance, requiring a tobacco retail permit for every tobacco retailer for the privilege of selling tobacco products in our city. at this point, they stated san francisco has a substantial interest to promote in compliance with the youth sales law in protecting our children from illegally obtaining tobacco. so just the background of why this law exists. there is a lot of laws that exist, and one that i would really like to highlight is you see the old time law book here is the reason that a retailer if a clerk sells to a minor they get a ticket and it is issued a ticket and a fine that
5:46pm
is associated with it and it is for code 308 and a violation of a law that you cannot provide tobacco to a person under 18 years of age. and this is a new law? no. you see this book, it is actually from 1906. so the code, 308 you cannot provide tobacco to a minor, and it has been on the books i think from maybe the 1880s or something, but it was in the 1906 version for your interest. there are a lot of laws that have taken effect since then that reinforce the idea that it is illegal to sell to minors. so, these slides, i cannot necessarily read, but, many members of our comment can, the reason that we put these on is that we understand that many people who work in retail establishments and perhaps even own them may not be familiar with the 108-plus law in the state of california. and so we do education, from the department of public health
5:47pm
in four languages. we sent out in arabic chinese and spanish and english and i will talk about education next. retailers know this law and well informed that it is illegal to sell to minors, virtually know this law that i encounter. the san francisco department of public health provides a mailing every single year for the last seven years to all 1100 retailers, with all of these items in your packet you will see a copy of it in these four different languages. in fact we just sent ours out this year, at the first week of march. so just so you know, all retailers right now have just received the informational packet talking about sales to minors, and in addition when they applied to the state and the board of equalization to the tobacco sort of handling license and they received the education and there is an agency that some of it comes from which is an enforcement agency that does inspections locally as well. there is a lot of opportunities to be educated about this and we at the department of public
5:48pm
health try to do a great deal of prevention to be sure that everyone knows about the law. why is the city actively enforces? there is reasons related to health and addiction, and the stores that break the law and sell to youth are making the profit at the advantage of the law abiding stores and the advantage of of our young people in the community and they are creating an unfair business environment, the ten or 15 or 20 percent of the retailers who do choose to break the law and sell to minors, they are receiving all of the business of minors and young people who are seeking tobacco know exactly which stores to go to, so surveys of san francisco unified school district students showed that 58 percent of 11th graders said that it is very easy to access tobacco, that it is easy to access tobacco, i will not include the very word. so there is a responsibility, as a said the tobacco sales are a privilege that are offered to
5:49pm
people and retailers and the city of san francisco according to this ordinance. responsibilities come with that opportunity including the responsibility to conduct business in a legal and non-harmful way. the burden of legal sales relies on the store owner who must train all employees and is responsible for all activity that will occur at the business whether it is related to sexual harassment or the sale of drugs, and that is just a copy of 308. so if you will bear with me i would like to go through the activity and i am a health educator by training. this is a copy of a driver's license and i think that you received some information about these new driver licenses and they were issued in 2010. the first thing if you imagine, you are a retailer who looking at a license and like to see id and you and i have licenses
5:50pm
that go horizontally, if you are under 21, you have a license that is vertical. if they have to turn it sideways, that is a red flag that they are under 21. there are concerns about calculation and how difficult it is to figure out an age. it is a simple because there is a blue strip that says this person will not turn 18 until the year blank, and this card it says 2011. so, all you need to know is what year it presently is in order to identify whether this person is a minor or not. in the case of the decoy operations that the police department use they use 15 and 16-year-old children and so presently in this year, these licenses will always stay in the blue bar, 2015, 2016 or 17. and so any person who is asking for identification should clearly know that date is in the future and that this person is not yet 18. no calculation is required. briefly, the police department
5:51pm
protocol for this, to make sure that you have a background on why these cases make their way to you. age or 15 or 16. they must provide their valid id card if it is interested. so if the clerk says that i need to see your id, they give their actual identification card it is not pretending, it says their average age and that will be 18 in, 2015, and they have to tell the truth if they are asked if they are 18. and they will state, no i am 16. and a police inspector witnesses every transaction in the store. so there is always an inspector physically watching the transaction occur and that is why it is often not contested that the transaction occurred. just for your information, the san francisco police department visits 450 randomly selected stores every 18 months and that is just logistics and funding. and so as far as suspensions assume thating they sell to a
5:52pm
minor t goes through the process to the health department and the health director has the legal authority, according to the ordinance, the permit ordinance to suspend the tobacco sales permit and the authority as you know is to suspend for up to 90 days for the first violation which is a pretty rare occurrence as you see from the su pensions that come your way. just a little bit of overview, since 2005, there have been 500 police citations, in the inspections the police department has done in the last 8 years, 481 stores have sold to a minor and have received a pc308 ticket for that violation and then there have been 356 suspensions of licenses for various periods of time as well as appeals that have made their way to the board to this board, a portion of those, that is only about 21 percent, that end up at the appeal level from those that are suspended. they choose to appeal the decision, but kind of keeping in mind that all of the
5:53pm
suspended businesses sold to a minor and so that the same crime occurred in every intense choosing to appeal for various reasons. so just an overview for you also, looking at kind of some metrics of appeals and just the last three years. it is good to have a consistent system of dealing with it as a deterrent factor, i have witnessed a few of these meetings but in a lot of cases there is a protest about a variance or a zoning concern that in the cases that tobacco retailers come to you with a suspension of the tobacco license, a crime is already been committed it has been completed and there usually is contestation of that. retailer
5:54pm
does not say that it did not happen because there was an inspector observing it. so the licensing is effective as you saw, and really that was not of the board of supervisors in establishing the law. when the tobacco license is suspended it may be a discomfort and have to tell the regular customers that we can't tell at the moment, that is not just seizing the regular income, that it might loose the permit and lose the issues of making money. >> in the final conclusion, the application of the law ensures our progress for no illegal sales, we are sthaogt for a bench smart of less than 8.7 percent and we would certainly love to see 0 as it is a law.
5:55pm
if you have any questions. >> excellent presentation, mr. smith. >> i have a question just and not intended to go into it. >> sure. >> if you know the answer. how are you measuring the reduction of the sales? if you are shooting for an 8.7 percent, how is the department determining how they are getting this information. >> we do the random samples. but the department of health works with the police department and we create a random sample of approximately 450 stores to be visited every, it is about every 18 months and so we come up with kind of an annual, 18 month, and that is based on the random sample. which includes all supervisoral districts and all substation districts but it is randomized
5:56pm
in such a way that it will go to 450 stores selected randomly. >> okay. >> it is consistent with how the state does a very similar, you know, inspection across california. is the san francisco enforcement, are the enforcement protocols similar? or taylored off of what the state does? >> they are virtually identical. the state also uses 15 and 16-year-olds and both insurance insure that young people have a valid id, for example. a lot of particularly in san francisco a lot of them don't drive and would not have a place to park a car or have the means to operate a car. so in many cases they would not have a valid california id and so the police department assures that they have one. >> i have nothing further. >> is it your opinion that
5:57pm
every first violation should receive a 90-day suspension. >> i have no specific opinion. >> is it a greater deterrent? >> the best practices show that suspensions of license is the best deturant. some communities look at assessment of fines and that sort of thing, but in most cases those are not a deterrent, they are considered a cost of doing business and they do not result in the lowering. they do not result in retraining the staff or the owner saying that this is never going to happen again, let get on board and institute whatever processes we need to insure that this is not, that we are not repeat sales people >> but at the same time, many of them are you know, in our experience, we do find that through sales from year to year. >> okay, but in your mind is there any difference between a 45-day suspension verses a 90-day suspension? >> i don't have information, to answer that, necessarily.
5:58pm
25 to 30 day has been effective. and that is kind of the standard that it seems that san francisco is being utilizing. >> okay. >> thank you. >> yeah. >> questions? >> yes, perhaps a last comment. the number of articles that have been coming out on the regular basis that the over all tobacco conception within the general population has also decreased. is there a correlation between that decrease and the decrease mentioned in your program? >> i believe so. yes, i think that every level, all communities in california are working to fight youth access to tobacco and in a variety of ways. and so effective programs like that which the san francisco police department is enforcing and that the environmental health department which administers the tobacco retail licenses, that this sort of moving forward with these and taking these as a serious issue just as the board takes it as a
5:59pm
serious issue, really does seem to be effective and that is why you saw the decrease that you saw from 2003 on ward and that the folks made a stand in san francisco and stated that sales of minors of tobacco is not acceptable. >> sorry, i have one more question, if you are done commissioner. >> so given that the statute seems to be based on knowledge that the person that sales must have knowledge or know under reasonable circumstances that they are selling to a minor. a part from the mailing that you send out that is in several languages, what other efforts has the department made to address any potential language barriers when you are doing public education around this issue? >> there are a variety of... i mentioned there is a slide that mentions efforts at the state level as well. i don't have 100 percent evidence about it but i would state that it is very unlikely that someone who sells tobacco does not

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)